As an
initial matter, the court notes that DeLima has filed four
notices of appeal (Doc. Nos. 115, 126, 132, 138) that have
been forwarded to the First Circuit.

[T]he Courts of Appeals have jurisdiction of appeals from
final decisions, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, a defined group of
interlocutory decisions, 28 U.S.C. § 1292, and a
“small class [of decisions] which finally determine
claims of right separable from, and collateral to, rights
asserted in the action, too important to be denied review and
too independent of the cause itself to require that appellate
consideration be deferred until the whole case is
adjudicated.”

Perry v. Tinkham, No. 2:15-CV-00310-JCN, 2018 WL
2376090, at *1 n.3, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87069, at *2 n.3
(D. Me. May 24, 2018) (quoting Cohen v. Beneficial Indus.
Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546 (1949)), appeal filed
sub nom. Perry v. Alexander, No. 18-1572 (1st Cir.,
filed June 18, 2018). The order, and lack of orders,
challenged in DeLima's notices of appeal are neither
final orders under § 1291 nor subject to interlocutory
appeal under § 1292. DeLima's filing of notices of
appeal have not divested this court of jurisdiction over this
matter. The court finds, therefore, that it retains
jurisdiction over all of the matters presently before the
court in this case.

Preliminary
Review

I.
Standard

In
determining whether a pro se pleading states a claim, the
court construes the pleading liberally. See Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). To survive preliminary
review, the complaint must contain “sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to
relief.'” See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted). Disregarding conclusory
allegations and legal conclusions, the court treats as true
all well-pleaded factual allegations, and construes
reasonable inferences in plaintiff's favor. See
Hernandez-Cuevas v. Taylor, 723 F.3d 91, 102-03 (1st
Cir. 2013) (citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678);
Ocasio-Hernández v. Fortuño-Burset,
640 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2011). The court may dismiss claims
asserted in a complaint if the court lacks jurisdiction, a
defendant is immune from the relief sought, the complaint
fails to state a claim, or the action is frivolous or
malicious. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); LR
4.3(d)(2).

II.
Background

DeLima's
amended complaint (Doc. No. 131) contains no clear narrative
and is difficult to understand. Many of DeLima's
assertions are legal conclusions that are not supported by
any specific facts. Liberally construed, the amended
complaint appears to allege the following facts and claims.

In her
amended complaint (Doc. No. 131) and addenda thereto (Doc.
Nos. 72, 87, 130, 130-1, 130-2, 130-3) (collectively
“First Amended Complaint” or “FAC”),
DeLima asserts claims against defendants Google LLC
(“Google”); Twitter, Inc.
(“Twitter”); YouTube, LLC
(“YouTube”); Facebook, Inc.
(“Facebook”); Patreon, Inc.
(“Patreon”); GoFundme, Inc.
(“GoFundMe”); and Blogspot.com. DeLima's
claims arise out of her assertions that her rights were
violated in connection with her use of the defendants'
websites. DeLima alleges that she has created one or more
accounts on YouTube, Google, Facebook Twitter, Blogspot.com,
Patreon, or GoFundMe, and that she is a member of a group of
Facebook users who contribute to a Facebook account entitled
“Stop Bullying Protect All Children.” Using those
accounts, DeLima posts videos and other content. Other users
of the defendants' websites follow DeLima's accounts
as subscribers, or view her videos and other content without
subscribing.

DeLima
asserts that the number of people who view and subscribe to
her accounts on the defendants' websites entitles her to
certain advertising revenue earned by YouTube and possibly
other defendants, and that those defendants have embezzled
such revenue from her. DeLima further asserts that on two of
the websites, Patreon and GoFundMe, she has established
fundraising websites, but that Patreon and GoFundMe have
embezzled money donated or pledged to her through those
websites. DeLima claims the defendants have engaged in
various tactics to receive money to which she is entitled,
including manipulating data concerning the number of people
who subscribe to and view her videos, and otherwise tampering
with her accounts.

Although
DeLima concedes that she “does not actually know how
much is paid [by YouTube/Google] per ad, per view and per
option of advertising, ” FAC at 5, she states in the
FAC that the defendants are embezzling 90% or 100% of the
money she has earned on defendants' internet platforms.
DeLima acknowledges that she has received payments from
Google for revenue earned by her YouTube channel, as Google
owns YouTube, but that the amount paid to her was a small
percentage of what it should have been, and was reduced by
the defendants' “illicit acts.” DeLima
further claims that the defendants, motivated by political
bias, based on the views she expresses in her videos and
other postings, have locked her out of her various accounts;
closed her accounts; denied her the ability to post some or
all content; deleted subscribers, comments, and view-counts
relating to her accounts; placed false strikes on her
accounts; stole or otherwise denied DeLima access to her
“virtual property, ”[2] and otherwise harassed her.

DeLima
additionally states that at one time she had a blog on
Blogspot.com with the domain name
http://natashanothingbuttruth.blogspot.com. At some point she
stopped using that domain. DeLima alleges that although she
purchased that domain, and that she holds a copyright in the
domain name, defendants Blogspot.com and Google have allowed
someone else to use that domain name to post content, some of
which she alleges is defamatory and harms DeLima and/or her
audience.

Generously
construing the assertions in the FAC, the court finds that
DeLima asserts the following claims in this action:

2. All of the defendants have embezzled money earned by
DeLima on the defendants' internet platforms and engaged
in other criminal activity with regard to DeLima's use of
those platforms.

3. All of the defendants have violated DeLima's First
Amendment right to free speech, and engaged in viewpoint
discrimination, by: a) censoring the content she posts on the
defendants' internet platforms; b) denying DeLima access
to the defendants' internet platforms; and c) requiring
that DeLima agree to ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.